Mother's Prenatal Care and Delivery Services Satisfaction according to Mode of Delivery

Dong Sook Cho; Yun Mi Kim; Myung Haeng Hur; Hyo Sook Oh; Eun-Young Kim

doi:10.4069/kjwhn.2009.15.4.353

Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.15(4) > 1037211

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Cho, Kim, Hur, Oh, and Kim: Mother's Prenatal Care and Delivery Services Satisfaction according to Mode of Delivery

Original Article

Korean J Women Health Nurs 2009;15(4):353-361.

Published online: 31 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2009.15.4.353

Mother's Prenatal Care and Delivery Services Satisfaction according to Mode of Delivery

Dong Sook Cho¹, Yun Mi Kim², Myung Haeng Hur², Hyo Sook Oh³, Eun-Young Kim⁴

¹Professor, College of Nursing, Eulji University

²Associate Professor, College of Nursing, Eulji University

³Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Honam University

⁴Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Dong-A University

Address reprint requests to : Kim, Yun Mi, Department of Nursing, Eulji University (Seongnam), 212 Yangji-dong, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam 461-713, Korea. Tel: 82-31-740-7183, Fax: 82-31-740-7359, E-mail: kyunm@eulji.ac.kr

Received 30 August 2009 Revised 5 December 2009 Accepted 10 December 2009

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to provide fundamental information about childbirth and antenatal care for pregnancy women and to find differences in mother's antenatal care and delivery service satisfaction between vaginal delivery and cesarean section.

Methods

This study was conducted in 4 residential areas and a study sample of 184 postpartum mothers who agreed to collect data. Data was collected from September 1 to October 20 2007 and a structured questionnaire were recruited by the survey. The data was analyzed by t-test and chi-squire test using SPSS/WIN 12.0.

Results

There was a significant difference in delivery place between vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery. Only 10.7% of vaginal delivery group delivered in general hospitals, however 24.5% of the cesarean section group delivered in general hospitals. Early antenatal care also showed statistical difference in mode of delivery. 43.5% of vaginal delivery mothers visited hospitals for the detection of pregnancy but 28.3% of cesarean section mothers did that. Vaginal delivery mothers more satisfied with her own delivery method and suggested a vaginal delivery to others.

Conclusion

These results suggest that cesarean section mother's sensitivity of early antenatal care was less than vaginal delivery mother. Satisfaction related to delivery care services were higher in the vaginal delivery group.

Keywords: Antenatal care, Childbirth experience, Vaginal delivery, Cesarean section

REFERENCES

1. Chang S.B, Park S.M, Chung C.W. Effect of Taegyo-focused prenatal education on maternal-fetal attachment and self-efficacy related to childbirth. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2004; 34(8):1409–1415.

2. Childbirth Connection. Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U. S. Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences. 2006.

3. Cho D.S. In: A study on the taekyo behavior of women who had given birth and the health professionals perception of Taekyo. Seoul: Yonsei University; 1987. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

4. Cho S.Y., Koh H.J. A comparison of primiparas' perception of delivery experience and identity as the mother according to delivery methods. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 1999; 5(1):5–17.

5. Emmett C.L., Shaw A.R., Montgomery A.A., Murphy D.J.; DiAMOND Study Group. Women's experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG. 2006; 113(12):1438–1445.

6. Fabiån H.M., Rådestad I, Waldenström U. Characteristics of Swedish women who do not attend childbirth and parenthood education classes during pregnancy. Midwifery. 2004; 20(3):226–235.

7. Gibbins J, Thomson A.M.. Women's expectations and experiences of childbirth. Midwifery. 2001; 17:302–313.

8. Giulia C., Francesco F., Carlo A.P.. Are cesarean deliveries more likely for poorly educated parents? A brief report from Italy. Birth. 2008; 35(3):241–244.

9. Han J.Y. Study of the application of a teratogen-risk information service. The annual report of KFDA, 11. 2008. from http://www.nifds.go.kr.

10. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. 2007. From http://www.hira.or.kr.

11. Jeffery B.G., Barbara D., Randall S.S.. Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1989; 321(4):233–239.

12. Jeon H.S., Seo H.G.. Abortion in Korea since 1945. Korean J Med Hist. 2003; 12(2):129–143.

13. Kim K.W., Lee K.H.. Woman's experience of risk situation on the high-risk pregency. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 1998; 4(1):121–133.

14. Kim S.K., Cho A.J., Kim Y.K., Do S.R., Lee K.W. In: 2006 The survey on the national fertility, family health & welfare in Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 2006.

15. Lee J.A., Park I.S., Moon Y.S., Lee N.H.. Influencing factors on family stress, family meaning and family adaptation in families with high risk neonates. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2007; 37(4):431–441.

16. Nilsson C, Lundgren I. Women's lived experience of fear of childbirth. Midwifery. 2009; 25:e1–e9.

17. Pascal G, Beatrice B. Trends in risk factors for caesarean sections in france between 1981 and 1995: Lessons for reducing the rates in the future. BJOG. 2001; 108(1):48–55.

18. Statistics Korea. 2007. From http://www.kostat.go.kr.

19. Tschudin S, Alder J, Hendriksen S, Bitzer J, Popp K.A, Zanetti R, Hosli I, Holzgreve W, Geissbuhler V. Previous birth experience and birth anxiety: Predictors of caesarean section on demand? J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 18:1–6.

Table 1.

Differences in sociodemographic characteristics between the two groups (N=184)

Characteristics	Categories	Total (n=184)	VD (n=131)	CS (n=53)	t or x² (p)
Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	t or x² (p)
Age (year)		31.0±4.1	30.1±3.4	31.3±4.9	2.47 (.56)
Residential area	Kangwon	34 (18.5)	20 (15.3)	14 (26.4)	5.03 (.17)
	Seoul · Gyeonggi	48 (26.1)	32 (24.4)	16 (30.2)
	Daejeon · Chungnam	55 (29.9)	42 (32.1)	13 (24.5)
	Honam	47 (25.5)	37 (28.2)	10 (18.9)
Monthly income (10,000 won)	＜300	34 (18.5)	17 (13.0)	17 (32.1)	9.14 (.00)
Monthly income (10,000 won)	≥300	150 (81.5)	114 (87.0)	36 (67.9)
Education	High school	40 (21.7)	27 (20.6)	13 (24.5)	0.43 (.81)
	College or university	124 (67.4)	89 (67.9)	35 (66.0)
	Post graduate	20 (10.9)	15 (11.5)	5 (9.4)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

Table 2.

Differences in obstetric and delivery facility characteristics between the two groups (N=184)

Variables	Total (n=184)	VD (n=131)	CS (n=53)	t or x² (p)
Variables	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	t or x² (p)
Parity				0.00 (.98)
Primi	94 (51.1)	67 (51.2)	27 (50.9)
Multi	90 (48.9)	64 (48.8)	26 (49.1)
Baby sex				0.91 (.22)
Male	101 (54.9)	69 (52.7)	32 (60.4)
Female	83 (45.1)	62 (47.3)	21 (39.6)
Body Wt. of baby (㎏)	3.2±0.4	3.2±0.4	3.2±0.4	0.21 (.83)
Wt. gain during pregnancy (㎏)	13.2±4.2	13.1±4.2	13.3±4.4	-0.21 (.84)
Delivery facility				5.83 (.05)
General hospital	27 (14.7)	14 (10.7)	13 (24.5)
Hospital	139 (75.5)	104 (79.4)	35 (66.1)
Private clinic	18 (9.8)	13 (9.9)	5 (9.4)
Length of hospitalization (day)	4.6±2.5	3.6±2.1	6.9±2.0	-9.44 (.00)
Medical cost for delivery (10,000 won)	62.7±47.0	44.7±30.7	108.3±50.5	-9.46 (.00)
Length of hospitalization (day)	4.6±2.5	3.6±2.1	6.9±2.0	-9.44 (.00)
Medical cost for delivery (10,000 won)	62.7±47.0	44.7±30.7	108.3±50.5	-9.46 (.00)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

Table 3.

Differences in preconception and early antenatal care behaviors between the two groups (N=184)

Variables		Total (n=184)	VD (n=131)	CS (n=53)	t or x² (p)
Variables		n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	t or x² (p)
Preconception care at clinic					0.17 (.40)
	Yes	55 (29.9)	38 (29.0)	17 (32.08)
	No	129 (70.1)	93 (71.0)	36 (67.92)
Preconception self care					0.99 (.41)
	Yes	18 (9.8)	11 (8.4)	7 (13.2)
	No	166 (90.2)	120 (91.6)	46 (86.8)
Planned pregnancy					0.75 (.39)
	Yes	88 (47.8)	60 (45.8)	28 (52.8)
	No	96 (52.3)	71 (54.2)	25 (47.2)
Prenancy wareness behavior
Self test	Yes	157 (85.3)	114 (87.0)	43 (81.1)	1.05 (.36)
Self test	No	27 (14.7)	17 (13.0)	10 (18.9)
Clinic visit	Yes	72 (39.1)	57 (43.5)	15 (28.3)	3.67 (.04)
Clinic visit	No	112 (60.9)	74 (54.2)	38 (71.7)
Time at diagnosis of pregnancy (week)		4.9±1.9	4.7±1.7	5.2±2.1	2.83 (.17)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

Table 4.

Characteristics of pregnancy womens' antenatal care facility (N=184)

Antenatal care contents	Total (n=184)	VD (n=131)	CS (n=53)	t or x² (p)
Antenatal care contents	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	t or x² (p)
Childbirth education class				0.84 (.24)
Attendance	43 (23.4)	33 (25.19)	10 (18.9)
Did not attend	141 (76.6)	98 (74.81)	43 (81.1)
No. of facility visited for antenatal care				0.06 (.97)
One	108 (58.7)	77 (58.8)	31 (58.5)
Two	59 (32.1)	41 (31.3)	18 (33.9)
More than three	10 (5.4)	7 (5.3)	3 (5.7)
Missing	7 (3.8)	6 (4.6)	1 (1.9)
Facility identify for antenatal care and delivery				0.12 (.43)
Same	142 (77.2)	102 (77.9)	40 (75.5)
Different	42 (22.8)	29 (22.1)	13 (24.5)
Time to antenatal care facility (min)	24.6±27.0	25.6±30.8	22.2±22.8	0.70 (.49)
Time to delivery facility (min)	28.7±30.2	26.2±29.8	29.1±31.5	-0.57 (.57)
Childbirth information sources				3.23 (.52)
Books	56 (30.4)	40 (30.5)	16 (30.2)
Internet	46 (25.0)	32 (24.4)	14 (26.4)
Friends & relatives	40 (21.7)	26 (19.9)	14 (26.4)
Doctors & Nurses	25 (13.6)	18 (13.7)	7 (13.2)
Previous delivery experiences	17 (9.2)	15 (11.5)	2 (3.8)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

Table 5.

Facility selection criteria for antenatal care and delivery (N=184)

Considerations	Total (n=184)	VD (n=131)	CS (n=53)
Considerations	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Good quality of medical services	67 (36.4)	46 (35.1)	21 (39.6)
Convenience (visiting/time)	42 (22.8)	31 (23.7)	11 (20.8)
Familiarity with previous visits	42 (22.8)	28 (21.4)	14 (26.4)
Recommended by resource persons	24 (13.0)	18 (13.7)	6 (11.3)
Availability of female doctor	9 (4.9)	8 (6.1)	1 (1.9)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

Table 6.

Differences in delivery services satisfaction between the two groups (N=184)

Contents	Total (n=184)	VD (n=131)	CS (n=53)	t (p)
Contents	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	t (p)
Satisfaction with the delivery method	3.93±1.03	4.26±0.82	3.13±1.03	7.77 (.00)
Wish to have the same method for future delivery	3.76±1.12	4.16±0.81	2.75±1.16	9.26 (.00)
Recommendation of the delivery method to others	3.57±1.14	4.05±0.80	2.38±0.97	11.78 (.00)
Satisfaction with physicians	3.90±0.90	3.91±0.89	3.86±0.93	0.30 (.76)
Satisfaction with general medical service	3.73±0.85	3.72±0.85	3.74±0.85	-0.09 (.93)
Satisfaction with maternity service	2.62±0.90	2.53±0.88	2.85±0.92	-2.22 (.03)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

TOOLS

Similar articles